Hospitality Training: Do Learning Styles Matter?

University of New MexicoUNM Digital RepositoryOrganization, Information and Learning SciencesETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations

7-2-2011

Hospitality Training: Do Learning Styles Matter?Alison J. Green

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/oils_etds

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Organization, Information and Learning Sciences ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For moreinformation, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationGreen, Alison J.. "Hospitality Training: Do Learning Styles Matter?." (2011). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/oils_etds/13

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu?utm_source=digitalrepository.unm.edu%2Foils_etds%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/oils_etds?utm_source=digitalrepository.unm.edu%2Foils_etds%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/etds?utm_source=digitalrepository.unm.edu%2Foils_etds%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/oils_etds/13?utm_source=digitalrepository.unm.edu%2Foils_etds%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

HOSPITALITY TRAINING: DO LEARNING STYLES MATTER?

BY

ALISON J. GREEN

B.A., Communications, Eastern Illinois University, 1985

M.A., Organizational Management, University of Phoenix, 1996

M.H.R., Human Relations, University of Oklahoma, 1999

Ph.D., Organizational Learning and Instructional Technology, University

of New Mexico, 2011

DISSERTATION

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Organizational Learning and Instructional Technology

The University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico

May, 2011

iii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to all of the Warriors in Pink, keep on fighting the

good fight. And to my sweet little girl, Lilli Anna who some day will understand why

this all was so important.

iv

Acknowledgements

As with goals such as a Ph.D., it really does take a village to get to the end and

relish in the sweet success. First and foremost I have to thank my mom, dad and sister. I

share the end result with all of them. An advanced degree is hard in many different ways

as an adult student, but add on to that a diagnosis with cancer just before starting the first

semester. My family helped me throughout the treatments, surgeries and mostly for

support all as I continued attending classes. I would not be where I am today without the

unconditional love. For that, I thank you in words.

I am surrounded by wonderful friends that have supported me to the end of this

degree. My friends helped me through the tough times, and celebrated the victories.

From my childhood, to college, I have truly been touched by friends my whole life. I

personally would like to thank my dear friend Emily Adams for being the person that

connected me with my “research guys” Don and John.

During my time in the OLIT program we formed a “knot” and I thank each one of

you in the program that supported me, especially Pam, Rebeca and Kristina. The OLIT

Doc Community of Practice is all about the giving and about sharing in the journey.

From a young age I have loved libraries, and I want to thank Mark for hiring me

as a Fellow at the University Libraries. For two years I created learning objects and

really enjoyed the entire fellowship. I met so many wonderful librarians and staff

members that rooting me on in each step of my journey.

Essential to this research was the approval from IHG which started years ago with

a great mentor, Gary who helped me get this real life study implemented. My IHG

trainer Jesus was always on top of task and just a delight to work with. It was an amazing

v

journey and to see the universe come together at the end of the study, well, that was just

icing on the cake.

My mentor, advisor, and chair, Dr. Patsy Boverie, it has been just a wonderful

experience and you have been a rock in my life. I have soaked in the knowledge and I

saw your connection with students, and my hope is that one day I walk the same line. My

committee, Dr. Mark Salisbury who helped row me to shore. Dr. Bob O‟Halloran

brought such a wealth of knowledge about hospitality and research into my world. And

finally Dr. Jackie Hood, a true inspiration to any business person, challenged and pushed

me in ways that made me think in a new way. I consider you a fabulous mentor which I

will reflect back on as I advise students in the years to come.

Chris, although the road has not been easy, our future is bright and we will walk

into new adventures and celebrate life together.

For all of the hospitality learners out there, my research and passion is for you, to

help the industry grow and thrive. It is giving back to the sector in which I love and will

continue to be part of my life in some way. Service really is in our blood, and for those

of us that catch the bug, there is no other industry we would like to be in.

Peace be with you.


BY

ALISON J. GREEN

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Organizational Learning and Instructional Technology

The University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico

May, 2011

vii


BY

Alison J. Green

B.A., Communications, Eastern Illinois University, 1985

M.A., Organizational Management, University of Phoenix, 1996

M.H.R., Human Relations, University of Oklahoma, 1999

Ph.D., Organizational Learning and Instructional Technology,

University of New Mexico, 2011

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this quantitative study was to explore the learning styles and

delivery mode preferences in hospitality training. The delivery modes were online, using

Centra™, and traditional training or face to face workshop. Data was collected from

participants (n=79) in training within a large hospitality organization over a total of 11

workshops, 6 traditional, 5 online. This study examined how best to use the results in

training at the instructional system design level to help deliver the appropriate training

delivery modes. There were a total of four research questions analyzed. A correlational

analysis, independent t-test and 2x1 ANOVA‟s were used to analyze the appropriate

research question. Index for Learning Styles (ILS) was used to determine the learning

styles of the participants, pretest and posttest measured the learning and additional

demographic questions were asked. There has been literature studying delivery modes in

university classrooms, yet there is a gap in real practice research within the hospitality

organization.

viii

Table of Contents

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................ 1

Background ............................................................................................................. 1

Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 4

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 5

Statement of Problem .............................................................................................. 6

Research questions .................................................................................................. 6

Summary ................................................................................................................. 6

Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review ....................................................................................... 10

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10

Hospitality Industry Sector ................................................................................... 10

Organizational Training ........................................................................................ 11

Adult Learners ...................................................................................................... 14

Andragogy............................................................................................................. 14

Experiential Learning............................................................................................ 17

Learning Styles ..................................................................................................... 19

Kolb learning styles theory. ...................................................................... 20

Felder learning styles. ............................................................................... 20

Learning Style Concerns ....................................................................................... 23

Delivery Modes of Instruction .............................................................................. 24

ix

Traditional instruction delivery mode. ...................................................... 25

Online instruction delivery mode. ............................................................. 25

Summary ............................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3: METHODS ............................................................................................ 29

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 29

Purpose of Study ................................................................................................... 29

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 30

Type of Research .................................................................................................. 31

Context and Access ............................................................................................... 31

Participants in the Study ....................................................................................... 33

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 34

Methods Used to Collect Data .............................................................................. 34

Instruments Used to Collect Data ......................................................................... 34

Felder/Solomon ILS. ................................................................................. 34

Demographic survey. ................................................................................ 37

Pretest/Posttest. ......................................................................................... 37

Procedure .............................................................................................................. 38

Step-by-step procedure. ............................................................................ 38

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 39

Organization of the data. ........................................................................... 39

Analysis..................................................................................................... 39

Summary ............................................................................................................... 39

Chapter 4: Analysis........................................................................................................ 41

x

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 41

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 41

Demographic Characteristics ................................................................................ 41

Analysis of the Data .............................................................................................. 50

Summary ............................................................................................................... 54

Chapter 5: Discussion .................................................................................................... 56

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 56

Summary of Current Study ................................................................................... 56

Methods, Participants and Instruments ................................................................. 57

Training Workshop and Participants .................................................................... 58

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 58

Instrument/Measurement ...................................................................................... 59

Active/Reflective. ..................................................................................... 59

Sensing/Intuitive. ...................................................................................... 59

Visual/Verbal. ........................................................................................... 59

Sequential/Global. ..................................................................................... 59

Summary of Results .............................................................................................. 61

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 62

Implications........................................................................................................... 65

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 68

Future Research .................................................................................................... 69

Final Thoughts ...................................................................................................... 70

References ........................................................................................................................ 71

xi

Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 83

Appendix A Eastern Carolina University Fall 2009 Study Results .................... 84

Appendix B Demographics of Participants....................................................... 105

Appendix C ILS, Pre Test, and Post Test Surveys ........................................... 106

Appendix D Overall Descriptive ILS Results and Correlations ....................... 115

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Adapted from Kolb Learning Cycle, Tying it All Together in the CS2 Course

............................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2. Visual/ Verbal Dimension from ILS. ............................................................... 64

xiii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Index for Learning Styles ................................................................................ 36

Table 3.2 Research Question and Analysis...................................................................... 37

Table 4.1 PERFORM workshops June - November 2010 ............................................... 42

Table 4.2 Delivery mode of study group ......................................................................... 43

Table 4.3 Gender .............................................................................................................. 44

Table 4.4 Age of Participants........................................................................................... 44

Table 4.5 Education ......................................................................................................... 45

Table 4.6 Online Class/Workshop Experience ................................................................ 46

Table 4.7 Years of Experience in Hospitality Industry.................................................... 46

Table 4.8 Occupation ....................................................................................................... 47

Table 4.9 Correlations ...................................................................................................... 48

Table 4.10 Means, Standard Deviations, and T-test Results ........................................... 51

Table 4.11 Pre and Post Test Scores ................................................................................ 52

Table 4.12 ANOVA results .............................................................................................. 53

Table 4.13 Pretest and Posttest scores. ............................................................................ 54

Table 5.1 ILS Score Sheet ............................................................................................... 60

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose

Background

The service industry is our nation‟s largest overall industry (Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2006). The hospitality/lodging industry equals about one quarter of the total

service-sector employees (Moncarz & Zhao, 2008) and is the largest component of the

service industry, accounting for two-thirds of its revenue (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

2006). The hospitality sector employs over 1.8 million people in the United States and

provides first jobs to many new entrants to the workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

2006). Turnover rates within the service industry are some of the highest in the nation,

even during difficult economic climates. According to Cho, Woods, Jang, and Erdem

(2006) the hospitality sector reports turnover ranging from 36 to 300 percent, which was

the highest of all service industries within the United States. The Incentive Research

Foundation (2002) estimates that employee turnover within the United States fast food

and hotel industries costs those sectors roughly $140 billion annually.

One reason for the significant turnover within the hospitality industry may be that

the industry itself is constantly changing and employees are expected to keep up with the

changes by rapidly learning new skills. Hospitality employees at every layer within an

organization – entry to executive – are challenged to improve service levels and the

quality of services provided. This is especially true for the mid-level hospitality worker

who is hired to perform the day-to-day operations of the hotel. Service and quality levels

are defined by the industry itself as well as at the franchisor level which then sets the

standards or also known as quality assurance levels.

2

A delicate blend of motivating, training and reinforcement is important to reach

the goal of increasing the service level. There is a direct impact from training to delivery

of service. Wood and Macaulay (1989) explain that if a hotel experiences a 150%

turnover, then guests are always being serviced by someone new. New employees may

not have the talent and skills to bring to the job quickly. Thus, the customer may have a

poor guest experience.

Recognizing the effects on bottom line profit statements and return on investment,

organizations are leveraging training to move toward a service focus (ASTD, 2009) and

aligning strategies with customer service culture (p. 20). Training may be the most

important topic in the hospitality industry because it is almost completely dependent on

people to deliver “service.” Pratten & Curtis (2002) suggest that in the hospitality

industry, where service is the product, it is the service that differentiates one company or

hotel from its competitors. Service leads to an “experience” and what brings the

customers back is a positive service experience. Hospitality workers are the people who

make the service experience, and thus, affect company revenue.

Training programs may help decrease turnover of the employees that provide a

high service level within an organization, and attention needs to be paid to how the

instruction is being designed and the delivered. Traditional instructional delivery of

training, better known as face-to-face training, is still dominant in hospitality training.

This type of training is designed for the masses in a one-size-fits-all approach. However,

the past decade has opened the doors to different ways to deliver training, including

online methods (synchronous and asynchronous), computer-based training, simulations

and even training in virtual worlds such as Second Life™. The proliferation of the

3

Internet as an instruction method has led to rapid growth in distance learning (Taran,

2006). Distance learning also called, e-learning, or online learning offers corporate

organizations an efficient and economical way to deliver material to learners (Dimitroff

& Wolfram, 1995). The once “new” way to learn is now an expected option in corporate

learning culture.

As corporations seek to improve the transfer of knowledge to employees via

training programs, there has been a focus on the question “How do adults learn the best?”

Merriam (2001) indicates that researchers have been asking that question for many years

and are still searching for the “best” method. Several adult learning approaches have

been developed over the years. One of the best known is from Malcolm Knowles, who

developed the andragogy model. This approach was developed to decipher learning,

especially for adults. Knowles (1975) infers that adults are self-directed and are expected

and expect to take responsibility for their decisions.

Another adult learning approach, experiential learning, was introduced by Carl

Rogers (1994). According to Rogers (1994), experiential learning is about personal

change and growth. Experiential learning originates from the humanistic approach to

psychology. Experiential learning allows the employee to work with real life situations

or with a hands on approach, and then learn from the experience. Within the hospitality

industry many of the frontline employees gain knowledge by doing activities. It is the

experience of the interaction with the guest and fellow employees that becomes tacit

knowledge down the road.

4

As the workplace changes so does the work environment and the focus on

employees. Organizations are now looking at ways to reach their employees through

well-developed training programs that acknowledge the training needs of the employees.

As organizations understand more about how adults learn, corporate trainers can

utilize tools that have been researched at the academic level based on empirical evidence.

Tools such as learning style assessments and preferred instructional delivery mode can be

used to make learning meaningful for each employee (Lee, 2010).

Corporate trainers can learn from academic research in regard to writing

instructional design that incorporates learning styles and the delivery mode preference.

Understanding how the trainees learning styles fit with the actual training, possibly will

help hospitality industry trainers be more effective in the delivery of instructional

materials.

Learning style assessments have been developed to identify preferred learning

style models. These assessments are used throughout academic and corporate learning

environments. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1976), Dunn & Dunn

Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1975, 1985), Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (Meyers & Briggs, 1980, 1995) and Felder/Silverman‟s Index of Learning

Styles (1988) are some of the more widely used models.

Assumptions

It is important to understand the following are assumptions that help guide this

study. Adult learning theory is different from child learning theory, and this study

focuses only on adult learning theory. How adults learn best is based on the following

specific assumptions:

5

Adult learners may have a preference for either online or traditional delivery

modes of instruction.

Adult learners may have an individual learning style and will do best when

delivery mode is matched to learning style.

Adult learners learn best when instruction is geared towards andragogical

(adult) perspective and not from a pedagogical (child) perspective.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate if there is an interaction

between the preferred delivery mode of instruction of hospitality employees and their

learning styles, as defined by the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) (Felder, 1993).

The study was conducted at InterContinental‟s Hotels Group (IHG), utilizing both

online and traditional instruction modes of delivery. The independent variables in the

study were learning styles as defined by Felder and Silverman (1988). The dependent

variable in this study was the training delivery mode, as defined as online (synchronous)

or traditional (face-to-face). Descriptive data collected included age, gender, ethnicity,

years in the industry, experience with online and traditional workshop delivery modes,

and income. A pretest and posttest were analyzed for learning and to explore the

differences of score for each delivery mode.

This study aims to contribute to current research on learning styles and

instructional delivery mode preference within hospitality organizations. In the last

decade there has been “notoriously little research” (Donavant, 2009, p. 227) in the

professional development and training environment with regards to adult learners. The

study will add to the literature in the area of learning styles at the corporate hospitality

6

training level; the research herein could add to the larger body of literature for all

corporate training organizations. Although educational research is important, it is vital to

learn from the current practice in the corporate world about how learning styles and

delivery mode can best help adult learners to have successful training outcomes.

Statement of Problem

To be competitive, the hospitality industry needs to focus on understanding

employee learning styles and designing instruction to complement delivery mode.

Research questions

1) Does the employee‟s learning style determine his/her preference for training

delivery mode?

2) Does an employee have better learning results via online or traditional

instruction mode?

3) Does an employee have better learning results if delivery mode is matched to

learning style?

Summary

To decrease turnover in the hospitality industry, training programs must be

developed that take into account learning styles and match preferred delivery

instructional modes to each individual. To stay competitive, it is critical that companies

move away from “one size fits all” training. Understanding how adults learn, which

delivery modes are available, and matching preferred learning styles are all key

components to effectively training the current workforce. If mid-level employees receive

the type of training that matches their learning styles and instructional delivery modes,

learning increases and worker turnover may decrease. By creating training programs that

7

match preferred learning styles and instruction delivery modes, hospitality companies can

benefit from having more highly-trained employees who are less likely to leave the

organization.

Definition of Terms

Adult Learner. Employees of the organization attending training. These employees bring

with them work and life experiences.

Adult Learning Theory. Principles providing instruction to the adult learner. The

pedagogy applied to the practices and background of the adult learner.

Andragogy. Knowles focused learning strategies based on the idea that adults learn

differently.

Centra Live. Online synchronous delivery mode used at IHG for their online workshops.

Centralized Training Department. One department that is responsible for the learning

management system, developing, and delivering training.

Formal Training. Training delivered by the centralized training department in a

workshop format.

Franchisee. Pays the franchisor a royalty for rights to operate. In this study,

Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG) includes the following hotel brands:

Intercontinental Hotels, Crowne Plaza, Hotel Indigo, Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn

Express, Staybridge Suites, and Candlewood Suites.

Franchisor. An organization that offers services in turn for a royalty fee. In this study,

Intercontinental Hotels Group is the franchisor.

Hospitality Industry. Large sector of the service industry. Includes hotels, lodging,

restaurants, events, theme parks, national parks, cruise lines.

8

Index for Learning Styles Assessment. 44 question instrument, with a or b choices. This

was designed by Felder and Solomon (1991) based on a theoretical model by

Felder and Silverman (1988).

Informal Training. Training that occurs outside of the formal workshop guidelines.

Instructional Systems Design. An instructional system that uses learning and

instructional theory to develop instruction and learner activities (umich.edu,

1996).

Learning Management System. Software that assists with the administrative duties to

execute training across the organization. This includes documentation, tracking,

and reporting. Works with both online learning and traditional instruction

methods.

Learning Organization. Senge (1990) states that organizations where people continually

expand their capacity to create the results they want are „learning organizations‟.

It is where people continue to learn view the organization as a whole.

Learning Styles. A way of thinking and processing information. How learners “perceive,

interact with, and respond to the learning environment” (Keefe, 1979).

Mid-Level Employee. An employee who has experience with revenue management

systems prior to the workshop.

Online Learning. Any educational experience that takes place via the internet. „E-

learning‟, distance learning‟, or „internet learning‟ are terms that may also be

used.

Organizational learning. Based on the concept that organizations are always changing

and need to adapt to stay competitive.

9

Posttest. Administered after the workshop, ten questions to test knowledge.

Pretest. Administered before the workshop, ten questions related to the workshop to test

knowledge.

Synchronous training. Delivery of a training program via online resources where there is

real time interaction between the learner and the trainer. Centra Live is used at

IHG.

Traditional Instruction. Face-to-face, in-person workshop. For this study, the traditional

instruction will take place in a hotel ballroom or breakout room.

10

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

In this chapter, a review of the current literature related to the study will be

conducted. The review is divided into five sections: hospitality industry sector;

organizational training; adult learning (including current theories); learning styles; and

delivery modes. Research from both academic and corporate settings will be examined.

Hospitality Industry Sector

The hospitality industry is a unique business sector as the end product produced is

guest satisfaction (Stutts, 2001). For much of this industry, it is the people within the

organization that make the difference in the guest satisfaction. Employees are the key

when producing the end product that for most according to Stutts (2001), are intangible.

The guest cannot buy the project before experiencing it, which means that the guests

interaction with the hospitality employee can either make or break an experience. And

also unique to this business sector is the fluidity of perceptions between an interaction

with an employee, and the actual physical environment. One can influence the other in

any given situation.

Competition for the fair share of business in any location is also unique. Unlike

other products that can be sold from one day to the next and retain the value, a hotel has a

set number of rooms to sell, and if those rooms are not sold, they perish in revenue (Hall,

1990). Competition in a market also brings out mandatory superior service at the hotel

level through the employees. The service levels that are demanded from the customer put

higher pressures on the industry as a whole to incorporate organizational learning theory

into the corporate hospitality organization as well as at the hotel property level. Training

11

is a large part of the organizational learning that helps the industry keeps up with the ever

changing demands from the customers.

Organizational Training

As organizations strive to compete in the global economy, skills and knowledge

take on an increasingly larger role (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). According to the most

recent training industry report by the American Society for Training and Development

(ASTD), it is estimated that in 2008 U.S. organizations spent $135.07 billion (ASTD,

2009) on employee learning and development. Learning is essential to improving the

productivity, effectiveness, and innovation of organizations trying to thrive in the global

economy (Butuza &Hauer, 2008). The complexity of the dynamic business environment

requires employees to have a good grasp of their job duties and the flexibility to adapt to

constantly changing business climates (Bell, Kanar & Kozlowski, 2008). Successful

business leaders understand that greater knowledge in their human capital is essential to

growth. Learning plays a very important role in preparing organizations to be

competitive (ASTD, 2009).

Training is one component of organizational learning. Organizational learning is

a relatively new concept, dating back just a few decades. Theorists from the disciplines

of psychology, sociology, economics, political science and management have contributed

to the current philosophy of organizational learning (Argyris, 1990, Easterby – Smith &

Lyles, 2003). While theorists have not come to a consensus on a clear definition of

organization learning, there are key concepts that span across each of the most popular

organizational learning theories. These three concepts are present in organizations that

incorporate learning: learning, memory and knowledge (Argyris & Schon, 1978).

12

Learning level (from individual to team), learning modes (cognitive, cultural and action

learning), learning types and phases of collective learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978) are

also frequently cited as four dimensions of organizational learning. Finger & Brand

(1999) suggest that organizational learning is the “activity and process by which

organizations eventually reach the ideal of a learning organization” (p. 136.) Argyris &

Schon (1978) suggest that in organizational learning, it is the individuals who learn rather

than the organizations. Although there are processes, the actual thinking and

remembering is done by individuals. It is up to the individual to apply the knowledge at

the individual, team and, corporate level (Prange, 1999).

Organizational learning is clearly rooted in the concept that organizations

constantly evolve. They change with the economy, globalization, competition, shifts in

demographics (both at the consumer and employee level) and with business trends.

Organizations need to incorporate change into their strategy and align goals and tasks

with that change in mind. This also is with the idea of the acquisition of knowledge and

the need to continue learning and gaining new knowledge and skills; there is a

tremendous need for employee training.

There has been some confusion with the definitions of organizational learning and

learning organizations in current literature. Understanding what each of the terms means

is important when studying an organization. The terms „organizational learning‟ and

„learning organizations‟ are used interchangeably in much of the business literature

(Butuza &Hauer, 2008). The terms actually have distinct meanings. Organizational

learning is the ability to gain insight from the organization‟s own experimentation and

then to look at the success and failures of the experimentation (Brown & Duiguid, 1991).

13

A learning organization has been described by Butuza &Hauer (2008) as “an organization

that supports the process of organizational learning and is transitioning to become a

knowledge-based enterprise” (p. 1315).

Senge (1990) helped to popularize the phrase “learning organization.” According

to Senge (1990), the learning organization is one where the people within the

organization are the key to something bigger than just the sum of the people, which he

coined as synergy. This is when a successful organization is able to adapt to constantly

changing situations and the people in the organization help with the adaptation. It is

learning at each level that will help an organization become successful in terms of outputs

and human resources. Senge (1990) says that idea of being adaptive and generative are

important in helping an organization create something new. Senge (1990) lists five

elements that need to converge for a learning organization to thrive: systems thinking,

personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning.

Nevis, DiBella & Gould (1997) suggest that to be a learning organization, the

organization must be able to grow its knowledge from experiences and re-shape itself in

the changing business climate. Employees that work for learning organizations learn

more quickly and are able to effectively disseminate their knowledge concerning

products, technologies, and business processes (Nevis et. al, 1997, Roberts, 2006).

Training is critical to both learning organizations and organizational learning.

Business leaders are looking to improve employee job performance and productivity

(Kim & Morris, 2006) in a way that aligns with their strategic goals. The shift from

production workers to knowledge workers in the last 40 years has been pronounced.

14

There also has been an increased recognition of the need to focus on the processes that

optimize performance in our global economy (Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

Adult Learners

In the fast-changing business world, employees are adult learners who seek

information. Because of the rate of change in technology, employees expect the content

of training to be designed to reach a diverse adult audience. For adults, learning is an

“integral part of everyday life at work” (Buch & Bartley, 2002, p. 5). As a result,

learning is one factor that determines the effectiveness of an organization‟s strategies,

goals and profits (Donavant, 2009). Understanding adult learners and the foundation of

adult learning theories is essential in designing and delivering training for organizations.

Designing instruction based on solid adult learning theory is essential in the

hospitality training industry. Understanding adult learning and “how adults learn best” is

critical for good development of new training. Several adult learning theories are

available to guide instructional designers; however, there is no one “right” theory

(Merriam, 2001).

Andragogy

The term “Andragogik” was coined in 1933 by Alexander Kapp, a German

educator (Andragogy, 2010). Dr. Jost Reischmann (2003) suggests that andragogy is a

term that labels an academic discipline centered on adults and how they learn. The field

of practice is considered “adult education” and the scholarly approach is known as

andragogy (Reischmann, 2003).

Knowles, who is considered the father of adult learning, developed principles that

help guide educators and ISD‟s in adult learning. Knowles introduced the term

15

“andragogy” that was derived from the andragogical model (Knowles, 1989, Kaufman,

2003). Knowles (1970, 1980) defines andragogy as “the art and science of helping adults

learn” (p.43); this is different from pedagogy, which is the science of how children learn.

Andragogy acts as guidelines in developing curriculum for adult education and

instructional design for training.

There are five basic assumptions in describing how adults learn and these are

incorporated into andragogy: adults understand why they need to know something and

are able to direct their own learning; adults have experience in life and tap into this

resource for future learning; adults have a willingness to learn when it relates to their

social roles; adults are problem-based learners and are interested in knowledge to solve

those problems; and adults are motivated to learn intrinsically rather than extrinsically

(Knowles, 1970, Merriam, 2001, TIPS, 2010).

Several principles of adult learning theory are general concepts for andragogy

(Kaufman, 2003, TIPS, 2010) and these are also based on Knowles‟ original principles.

Examples of these principles include:

Setting up the learning environment so the learners feel comfortable in their

surroundings and are not intimidated,

Involving learners in the process of the planning and the evaluation of what

they learn,

Understanding past experience is essential when applying to the current

situation.

Finding what learners are interested in what interests them. This can be what

has immediate relevance to their personal or professional life

16

Realizing learners are part of their own learning (Kaufman, 2003; Olsen,

2007).

According to Knowles (1978) adults need to know why they are learning, and

why it is important to learn. A large part of learning for adults is to learn by experience

(Knowles, 1980). By being actively involved, the learner will learn more than had he or

she simply been observing. Most adults are intrinsic problem-solvers (Knowles, 1980),

and in the process of solving these problems they learn. Learning also has to have of

some type of value to the learner.

Throughout the last few decades there have been critiques of Knowles‟

understanding of the term “andragogy.” Criticism is varied; Gent (1996) suggests that

the concept of andragogy is not general but rather a “specific, prescriptive approach” (p.

116). Another critique is that there has been a negative slant towards pedagogy.

According to Merriam and Caffarella (1999), “knowledge developed in pedagogy

through 400 years could not be made fruitful for andragogy” (p. 273). Although much

has been written about andragogy, most researchers, including Knowles, agree that

andragogy is less of a theory and more of a guiding principle (Knowles, 1989).

Adult learning is the practice of the principles and assumptions of andragogy. In

training, the foundation for writing Instructional Systems Design (ISD) is used when

writing the content for the training that is delivered. The ISD is based on adult learning

principles and assumptions. It is important to understand that in ISD, it is critical to base

the training design on sound principles and to understand how adults best learn.

17

Experiential Learning

Another method of theory used in adult learning is experiential learning.

Experiential learning involves making meaning out of an experience (Benander, 2009);

that meaning is then applied to the real world in the form of workplace training. For

practicum in education or in training this is the theoretical foundation (Benander, 2009)

As an early researcher of adult education, Carl Rogers developed principles based

on experiential learning. These (1969) principles include: setting a positive tone for

learning; setting the purpose in a way the learner will understand; allowing materials to

be available to the learner; balancing and stimulating the emotional and intellectual side

of the learner; and sharing ideas with the learners but not dominating the discussion.

Along with the principles, one of the key elements Rogers identified is to be open to

change (Rogers & Freiberg, 1994).

David Kolb‟s findings regarding experiential learning, based on the works of John

Dewey, Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget (Kolb 1984), are grounded in the disciplines of

psychology, philosophy, and physiology. By comparing the learning modes of Dewey,

Lewin, and Piaget, Kolb (1984) identified common themes in the experiential learning

process. Kolb believes that each learner is different and that learning itself is a complex

process. The theory is based on the premise that learning is not an outcome. When

discussing adult learning, it is the “journey” that is important, not just the end result.

Kolb (1984) suggests that learning happens best when a process is followed. Learning is

more than just memorizing information; it involves the whole self and includes thinking,

feeling, and perception (Loo, 2002).

18

Four basic modes of learning are found in Kolb‟s model. Learning is conceived

as a four-stage cycle (Loo, 2002) and within the cycle there also could be “wheels within

wheels” (Kolb, 1984). The four stages start with Concrete Experience (CE), followed by

Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and, finally, Active

Experimentation (AE). The Kolb Learning Cycle also asks “why” “what” “how” and

“what if” about the learning.

Figure 1. Adapted from Kolb Learning Cycle, Tying it All Together in the CS2 Course,

(Howard, Carver, & Lane, 1996).

The model also has two independent dimensions (Loo, 2002) based on perceiving

and processing. It is from these two dimensions that Kolb formed four learning modes.

Why?

What?

How?

What if?

19

Learning Styles

Liu (2007) suggests that when using learning styles inventories (assessments),

educational and training programs can use the information and adapt instructional

strategies to design curricula that are compatible with the student‟s learning styles.

Although the origin of learning styles has been traced back further than four decades,

most research in the area has occurred in the past thirty years (Cassidy, 2004). While the

intensity of the research has increased and decreased over time, during the last decade

there has been an upturn in the number of researchers working in this area (Cassidy,

2004).

Other variables, which include motivation, perception of information, and self-

efficacy (Costa, 2001) are parts of learning. Most of the literature surrounding learning

styles and delivery mode is from the field of education and is situated in educational

settings (Berings, Poell & Simmons, 2008). Graf & Kinshuk (2007) suggest that

educational researchers and theorists agree that students learn in different ways and that

the consideration of learning styles can help the student learn more effectively. Research

studies have focused on how effective it is to match learning style with delivery mode of

instruction; findings from these studies are now being applied to the classroom (Graf &

Kinshuk, 2007).

Learning styles can be understood as how learners describe their attitude and

behavior toward a certain way of learning (Honey & Mumford, 1992). There are several

models for learning styles as well as several instruments that have been developed to

measure those styles. Kolb (1984), Honey and Mumford (1982), Pask (1976), and Felder

and Silverman (1988) are all models used currently in education and business in the

20

United States. Some educational theorists consider learning styles to be an important

factor in how learners learn and see them as a vital part of the facilitation process (Graf,

Kinshuk & Liu, 2009).

Kolb learning styles theory. Kolb (1984) identified a dimensional type of

learning style that offers a four-quadrant model based on learner preferences. Kolb

categorized the learning style types as accommodators, convergers, divergers, and

assimilators (Frontczak, 1990). A teacher may use the Kolb instrument in class to assess

learning styles. With that information, the teacher then can design the class to provide

material and activities for deeper learning (Graf et al., 2009). In organizations, the same

principle applies to training. Learning styles can help instructional designers capture

different methods of delivering instruction (Liu, 2007).

Felder learning styles. Felder and Solomon (1991) created an index that

categorizes learners into dimensions of the learner‟s preferences. Each dimension for

learning styles offers insight into what learners prefer for perceptual mode and

information attributes. The ILS is based on the Felder and Silverman (1988) learning

style model that offers four different dimensions. This instrument can be considered

internally valid and reliable (Felder & Brent, 2005). The ILS is available free on the

Internet. According to Felder & Spurlin (2005) the instrument was created to help

students in engineering education. Since the instrument has been created, the ILS has

been translated into six languages and the web site receives about 100,000 hits every year

(Genovese, 2004). One learning style is not preferable and another inferior; it is how

people prefer to learn, and each individual has a different style that works best for him or

21

her (Felder & Brent, 2005). Table 2.1 describes the key learning style models and

instruments prevalent in the United States.

22

Name General Key Terms/Descriptors Design of Model Reliability

/Validity

Andragogy/

Pedagogy

Assessment of

Instrument

Date

Introduced

Honey and Mumford‟s

Learning Styles

Questionnaire (LSQ).

“Flexibly Stable

Learning

preferences”

Not psychometric

but is a checklist

of how people

learn

Activist/Reflector-

theorist/pragmatist

Based on Kolb‟s

model, with new

terms which are

aligned with the

stages in the

learning cycle

Only some internal

reliability has been

found, more

test/retest needed.

Validity is claimed

by authors

Helps managers to

set up personal

plan for learning.

Suggestions to

help people

understand their

styles

Is used in

Business – needs

more testing.

1982

Kolb‟s learning Style

Inventory (LSI)

“Flexibly Stable

Learning

preferences”

Learning styles

are not fixed

personality traits,

but are steady

patterns of

behavior.

Accommodating, diverging,

converging, assimilating

Based on the theory

of experiential

learning, which

incorporates growth

and development.

Currently the third

version is a bit

better, there are

debates.

Construct validity

has been

challenged.

The foundation

provides the

framework for

design of all

learning

experiences.

One of the first

models used, and

still widely used

in education and

business. The

questions about

reliability and

validity are still

at the forefront.

1976

1985

1999

Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI)

Learning styles

are one

component of a

stable personality

type. A view of

the “whole

person”.

Perceiving/judging,

sensing/intuition,

thinking/feeling,

extroversion/introversion

Based on Jung‟s

theory on four

bipolar scales, and

possible 16 types.

Reliability of co-

efficients are high.

The face validity is

accepted, but the

construct validity is

controversial.

Used for career

counseling.

There is still

discussion on

MBTI for being

used in

education.

1962

Felder /Solomon

Index for Learning

Styles

“Flexibly Stable

Learning

preferences”

Active/reflective,

sensing/intuitive,

visual/verbal,

sequential/global

Based on

Felder/Silverman

model

Claim to have

construct and

internal validity.

Used both in the

business and

education setting.

Free, widely used

online

1996

23

Learning Style Concerns

While it is accepted that learning styles can be used as a tool for both educators

and businesses, there are a host of issues to consider. Coffield (2004) suggests that

learning styles are “not unified, but divided into three linked areas of activity:

theoretical, pedagogical and commercial” (p.11). The research on learning styles spans

across the disciplines of psychology, sociology, business, and education. Researchers

working “in the field of learning styles across or within these disciplines tend to interpret

evidence and theories in their own terms” (Coffield, 2004, pg. 11). The cross-

disciplinary study of learning styles has led to researchers competing with, rather than

collaborating with, one another.

Another concern is the multitude of ways in which „learning style‟ is defined; this

lack of agreement has led some researchers to posit that this is not a “pure theory”

(Cassidy, 2004, p. 417). Some researchers believe that there are two ways to view

learning styles: as a trait that is stable over time and as a trait that can be changed through

learning experiences (Choi, et. al, 2009). The issues with how researcher‟s view the

definition with learning styles and their interactions with performance in education has

been has caused some controversy (Choi, Lee & Kang, 2009). Some research argues that

learning styles are related to an instructional preference and may influence learning

outcomes. Other researchers such as Loo (2004) argue that learning styles do not affect

learning preferences and that “instead of trying to match learning methods to individual

learning styles, teachers should encourage students to adapt to different learning methods

(p.29).

24

Another concern regarding learning style theory is the lack of empirical-based

literature on the subject. Mayer (2009) believes that there are only “a handful of

scientifically rigorous experimental tests” that looks at learning styles and how they are

being used in the classroom (pg. 1). Mayer (2009) also suggests that there is not enough

evidence in the literature that interactions exist between learning styles and instructional

delivery method.

Delivery Modes of Instruction

In recent years, there has been a flurry of activity concerning delivery mode of

instruction in formal education settings. Much of the literature comparing online and

traditional modes of delivery began with the advent of technology that helped deliver

instruction. According to Donavant (2009) there has been “notoriously little research”

(p.227) in the area of formal training settings relative to the occupation of the adult

learner within an organization. Consequently, most of the existing research has been

conducted within the education community; adult education practitioners are “often

forced to fill this gap” (p. 228) with studies from academia.

As the concept of distance education has been embraced by the educational

community over the last 15 years, there have been many studies conducted that examine

online and traditional (or face-to-face) teaching. Although individual studies may have

found that online education and traditional instruction varies, as far as transfer of

learning, the “majority found no significant difference between the delivery mode”

(Donavant, 2009, p. 228), this is better known as the no significant difference

phenomenon in educational research circles. A great deal of research regarding

educational instruction delivery modes, comparing online with traditional instructional

25

delivery (Liu, 2007) has been conducted. However, there has been very little research

performed within the training industry with regards to online learning or traditional

instruction preference (Donavant, 2009).

In organizations there are two basic types of training: one-to-one training and

group training (Rakicevik, Miladinoski & Strezoska, 2008). For the group training

method there are different techniques and delivery modes available. These include

classroom lecture, demonstrations, and hands-on experiential learning (Rakicevik, et. al.,

2008). Recently, advances in technology have opened the door to online delivery modes

for training for group training or for the individual training.

Traditional instruction delivery mode. In traditional instructional delivery

mode, the definition most commonly accepted is: face-to-face instruction is in a brick

and mortar class. In the educational setting, lecturing and instructor led classes is thought

of as direct instruction method in which there is time for students and teachers to interact.

There can be a variety of instruction methods such as lecture, presentation (media,

PowerPoint), discussion and activities (Behnke & Ghisselli, 2004). Traditional

instructional delivery can offer more personal involvement, a focus of time on one

subject, and synchronous communication. There may be limits to the face-to-face

delivery method due to differences in learning styles, unequal skills, and cultural

differences between the instructors and the learners (Behnke & Ghisselli, 2004).

Online instruction delivery mode. Online learning is gaining in popularity as

trainers and educators realize that learning no longer has to take place in the traditional

classroom setting (Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006). This type of learning

can refer to any instructional approach in which the instructor/trainer and learner are

26

separated by time, space, or distance (Klein, Noe & Wang, 2006). Online training, or e-

learning, is being used in organizations to provide worldwide training, increase learner

convenience, and lower expenses by reducing travel costs (Welsh,Wanberg, Brown, &

Simmering, 2003).

Online learning has become an important option both in education (Yilmaz &

Wang, 2005) and in training organizations (Felix, 2006). With advances in technology,

there are many different modes and approaches to employee training (Zenger, Lazzarini

& Poppo, 2002). In the State of the Industry 2009 report, ASTD (2009) suggests that, up

until the year 2007, e-learning numbers have grown. While those opportunities decreased

somewhat in 2008 (ATSD, 2009), online learning in the United States is expected to

“rebound by the end of 2009” (ASTD, 2009, p. 5). Technology-based solutions have

become popular in the training industry (ASTD, 2009) due to centralization, flexibility,

reach, and efficiency.

Online learning can incorporate course management systems that include

interactive video, virtual bulletin boards, chat rooms, e-mail, instant messaging, and

document sharing systems (Martins & Kellermanns, 2004). Distance learning makes it

possible for content to be delivered across the globe and gives learners the opportunity to

collaborate and share information with people outside of their “geographic area” (Klien,

Noe & Wang, 2006). Online learning opportunities can reach a diverse population of

learners, tearing down geographical boundaries that may have existed in the past. In a

traditional setting, the cost and effort to physically be in a class may prohibit people from

obtaining more education/knowledge.

27

Online learning can be asynchronous, which means that content can be presented

and made available online for a longer period of time. The learner can access the

materials when he or she wants to learn. Synchronous online delivery is where the

instructor leads the class in real time, with voice, text and sometimes video (Akkoyunlu

& Soylu, 2008). Advances in technology have brought many new opportunities to the

online learning community. The Internet has allowed learners to take control of their

program of study and arrange for it to fit into lifestyle and time constraints. Online

learning is not tied to a physical structure and has the advantage of different online

venues such as WebCT, elluminate, and Centra. Its popularity has increased, as more

people are comfortable using the Internet.

Recently, there has been a realization in the business training industry that in

order to remain competitive, ISD needs to have a pedagogical or andragogical approach

that incorporates the learner and learning (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). It is not the

technology of the delivery that imparts learning: it is the design of the delivery of the

material.

Organizations can also benefit from online training. An increase in online

delivery modes with virtual classroom training and (O‟Leonard, 2010) online delivery

modes is a way to reach more people for less training dollars. Much of the interest in

online delivery instruction modes is in response to the failing economy. The perception

is that online training costs less to deliver to the learner and can save the organization

money versus training in a face-to-face mode.

28

Summary

Over the past four decades, there have been many research studies on learning

styles and the relationship between learners‟ preferences and instructional delivery

modes. Much of the research has been based in educational settings. Attention has been

paid to the study of learning styles and the importance in incorporating the knowledge to

the classroom (Liu, 2007), but there has not been substantial research in the corporate

sector. In order to achieve higher satisfaction for all learners in various situations, it is

worthwhile to examine how learning styles fit into the design of instruction and online

courses.

Corporate learning programs have traditionally developed instruction without

considering how an employee can best learn and apply the instruction to everyday work.

As the shift for training moves away from traditional training programs and toward using

technology as part of the delivery options, there is a greater need to understand the adult

learner. This literature review suggests that there needs to be more research in the area of

learning styles assessments. Additionally, identifying and incorporating what is known

about learning styles will help organizations have a better understanding of how their

employees learn and how to differentiate instruction for each employee. This study

attempts to add to the body of knowledge by closing the gap between educational

research on the topic and research from the organizational world.

29

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

Introduction

This chapter outlines the methods and procedures that were utilized for the

research study. The participants, research questions, instruments, and procedures are

discussed in detail.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if an interaction exists between

learning styles of employees and their preferred instructional delivery mode in hospitality

training. This study is based on a pilot study completed at East Carolina University

(ECU) in the Fall of 2009 titled Optimal Learning Methods, the results from the study

may be found in Appendix A. The participants in the study were hospitality students

taking a class either online or traditional. The ECU research question was “To what

extent do learning styles have an impact when it comes to selecting a course either online

versus face to face at a university?” and this hypothesis: H1 - There is no significant

statistical difference in the learners‟ learning style and preference for mode of delivery,

either online or face to face. Based on the research findings from ECU, it warranted

further investigation. The researcher saw that there was an opportunity to apply the

findings from ECU students to real life practice (employee‟s) by using a hospitality

training organization to further explore the area of research.

It is essential in centralized hospitality training departments to be able to develop

effective training if there is an understanding of how to match learning styles to

instructional delivery modes. Effective training will increase the learning of materials

presented in a workshop and will aid in the decrease of turnover. Hospitality

30

organizations, trying to stay competitive in the fast-changing global economy, are

continually looking for alternative ways to deliver training materials to the current

workforce. Knowing how employees learn best could help organizations gain a

competitive advantage.

The study focused on real world, corporate hospitality industry employees who

were enrolled in training classes offered by “corporate” (franchisor). The data was

collected from IHG the “Americas” training sector. As discussed in chapter 2, there is

little research in the current literature that addresses learning styles and instructional

delivery mode preference and even less when looking specifically at hospitality

employees.

The study examined learning styles in both a synchronous online learning

environment and a traditional face-to-face instructional setting. The investigation

determined if there were differences in learning styles among employees who select a

“preferred” type of delivery mode. One of the goals of this study was to help

instructional designers develop training materials that address different learning styles.

When learning styles are taken into consideration, the hospitality industry will possibly

find more success in training and retaining employees.

Research Questions


delivery mode?

2) Does an employee have better learning results via online or traditional instruction

mode?

31


learning style?

Learning style is the independent variable (continuous) and delivery mode –

online or traditional instruction -- is the dependent variable (categorical).

Type of Research

The study was quasi-experimental; the participants were not selected at random,

and therefore, the study does not fit the true definition of an experiment. The participants

in each of the workshops were given the chance to join the study or to opt out of

participating. The participants were not randomly assigned to a delivery mode; corporate

employees that participated had the option to select their own workshop, either online or

traditional. The goal was to use a minimum of 120 participants for this study (60

participating online and 60 participating via traditional instruction mode).

Context and Access

IHG employs an average of 8,334 people worldwide. More than 330,000 people

are employed globally when accounting for all IHG real estate (managed and franchised

hotels) (2008 IHG Annual Report and Financial Statement, 2009). IHG currently has a

total of 4,186 global hotels – 3,260 of which are considered to be in the Americas (2008

IHG Annual Report and Financial statement, 2009). Over 3,051 franchised hotels and

219 hotels are owned/leased and managed by IHG. For this study, the researcher was

interested only in the “Americas” employees working for franchisees or managed hotels

by IHG in the United States.

The study was conducted at workshops delivered by IHG during the summer and

fall of 2010. There were several workshops offered to IHG employees; for this study, a

32

purposive sample was the PERFORM Workshop. PERFORM is a workshop that

delivers the “how to” of a revenue optimizing program that works with HOLIDEX, the

reservation systems used by IHG. The PERFORM workshop is written for mid-level

employees with some knowledge of revenue management as well as a basic level of

understanding of the HOLIDEX system.

The workshops at IHG are offered to employees throughout the year using both

online and traditional instruction methods. For this study, there were several PERFORM

workshops conducted during the timeframe specified to gather data. The PERFORM

course was selected for use in the study because of its consistently high attendance

records, which will help guarantee an appropriate number of participants in the study.

According to IHG, PERFORM is a popular course and is well attended in both its online

and traditional forms. For this study, the same instructor taught 10 workshops and both

delivery modes of the course. There was one additional traditional workshop added, in

which a different instructor was used. Both of the instructors who delivered the training

were experienced revenue management trainers and both had taught this course both

online and in-person for several years.

The content covered in PERFORM was the same in both delivery modes;

however, there may have been some difference in the actual delivery materials because of

adherence to distance learning pedagogies. The online training was conducted via Centra

Live, part of IHG‟s learning management system, Saba™. The online training mode was

synchronous and instructor-led. The traditional instructional delivery mode was located

in the “field” - taking place in a hotel meeting room.

33

The traditional workshops took place from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and were configured

for face-to-face instruction by using equipment such as a LCD projector and screen. The

set-up for the room is typically of round table “crescent” style that allows for discussion

at the table and a clear view of the instructor. The average attendance for each traditional

style of workshop in 2009 was 16 participants (IHG, 2010).

The Centra Live online workshops duplicated the content and material covered in

the traditional instructional mode. Centra Live also uses special integrated system tools,

such as the ability to raise hands virtually and “check” for knowledge. The average

attendance for this type of workshop in 2009 was 41 participants (IHG, 2010).

The participants completed a pretest and posttest. The intent of the assessment

was to evaluate the difference between online and traditional modes: are the scores

different between the modes?

Participants in the Study

The population of this study was the hospitality industry employees. The target

population was all of the hospitality industry employees who attend training. The

accessible population for this study was participants attending training at IHG, either

franchised or owned/managed hotels. The sample population was employees who were

enrolled in PERFORM (delivered online or via traditional instruction) offered during

May through December 2010 at IHG. All participants were adults employed in positions

ranking higher than entry-level.

Each of the participants enrolled in PERFORM training during the time frame of

May 2010 through December 2010 were invited to participate in the study. The data

collection goal was 60 participants online and 60 participants in the traditional delivery

34

mode. This data collection happened over several workshops, and the data was then

combined and analyzed.

Data Collection

A week before the workshop, participants were asked via email if they would like

to participate in the study. An announcement was sent to the participant with a link to the

ILS/Demographic survey. Prior to class, students received a link to an online pretest,

which was submitted at least one hour prior to the workshop. Upon completion of the

workshop, an online posttest link was sent to participants. The revenue ISD team at IHG

developed the tests, because the team was familiar with the workshop. This provided

IHG with the opportunity to test the knowledge of each participant prior to and upon

completion of the workshop. Currently, IHG does not test for knowledge; however, they

do survey the workshop participants to discern how the “delivery” of the workshop is

perceived.

Methods Used to Collect Data

The ILS was administered by the first day of the workshop. The participants

completed the 44-question instrument and demographic information online. Opinio, an

online survey software, was used to collect the data.

Instruments Used to Collect Data

Felder/Solomon ILS. To measure each individual‟s learning style, the ILS

assessment was selected. Although there were many different instruments that could be

utilized to measure the learning styles of participants, the ILS was chosen for several

reasons. First and foremost, in a test-retest reliability measurement, the results reported

high correlations (Seery, Gaughran, & Waldmann, 2003). Also, internal consistency

35

reliability was studied by measuring the homogeneity of items on the ILS. All of the

results show an acceptable α =0.5 or greater. Use of the ILS comes at no cost to the

researcher, as long as the instrument is used for educational research purposes.

Developed by Richard Felder and Barbara Solomon at North Carolina State

University in 1996, the 44 question ILS was designed to measure learning styles and has

since been translated into 6 languages. The ILS can be obtained from Dr. Felder's

website, which receives over a million page views each year (Genovese, 2004).

Educators and researchers are permitted to use the instrument without seeking further

permission from Dr. Felder. The web-based version of the ILS has been taken over

100,000 times a year (Litzinger, Lee, & Wise, 2005) with the results published in a

variety of publications.

The learning styles are categorized into four dimensions and are continuous.

According to Felder and Spurlin (2005) the instruments measure the following styles that

are on a continuum:

36

Table 3.1 Index for Learning Styles

11a (or -) Index of Learning Styles 11b (or +)

Active

Way of processing

information. Active learners

enjoy being a part of the

“action”, they try things out

and apply the learinng

material.

Question #‟s -

1,5,9,13,17,21,25,29,33,37,41

Reflective

Reflective learners like to think

things out, reflect on what is

being said and then like to

work alone.

Sensing

Sensing learners like to learn

the facts and have concrete

learning materials and

experiences. They like to

solve problems and have an

attention to details. The

sensing learners are also

considered more realistic and

sensible and tend to be

practical.

Question #‟s –

2,6,10,14,18,22,26,30,34,38,42

Intuitive

Intuitive learners learn better

from concepts and theories.

Visual

Visual learners remember

from seeing pictures and

diagrams, flow charts and

tables of data.

Question #‟s –

3,7,11,15,19,23,27,31,35,39,43

Verbal

Verbal learners remember by

spoken words

Sequential

Sequential learners like to

have information in a linear,

step by step process. This is

logical and systematic

Question #‟s –

4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44

Global

Global learners see things in a

larger picture, and then focus

on the details.

37

Demographic survey. In addition to the ILS instrument, demographic

information related to each participant‟s age, gender, educational level, years of industry

experience, and number of online classes taken was collected. These questions were

included in the survey at the end of the ILS instrument.

Pretest/Posttest. The pretest and posttest administered in this study were

generated by the ISD team at IHG. The ISD team was comprised of the instructor, a

program supervisor, and a revenue management specialist. This was not necessary since

the total amount of questions being was at 11. The instrument asked revenue

management questions that were specific to PERFORM. The same questions were on

both the pretest and posttest, with the posttest having one more added to determine the

preference of delivery mode from the participants.

Table 3.2 Research Question and Analysis.

Research Question Participants Instrument Analysis

Does the employee‟s learning

style determine his/her

preference for training delivery

mode?

IHG Online and

Traditional

ILS T-Test

Does an employee have better

learning results via online or

traditional instruction mode?

IHG Online and

Traditional

ILS/Pre and Posttest 2x1 ANOVA

Does an employee have better

learning results if delivery

mode is matched to learning

style?

IHG Online and

Traditional

Pre and Posttest 2x1 ANOVA

38

Procedure

To compare the learning style preference for delivery mode, each participant‟s

learning style was first determined. The ILS/Demographic survey was completed before

the workshop. Then, the pre/posttest was analyzed for knowledge, for both the online

and traditional instructional mode. Learners within both delivery modes received the

same email prior to the workshop that explained the study and provided access to the ILS

links and the pretest link. At the conclusion of the workshops, all learners were provided

with access to the posttest link.

Step-by-step procedure. One week to one minute prior to the workshop,

participants read and signed the consent form, agreeing to participate in the study.

1) Participants were given a link to the online ILS and demographic survey

Opinio. The survey was filled out prior to the start of the workshop.

2) Prior to the workshop, participants completed the pretest. This test was

comprised of 11 objective-type questions. A link for a pretest was available to

collect the data. The pretest questions were designed to determine subject

matter knowledge prior to the training.

3) After the workshop, participants completed the posttest. The test was

comprised of 11 objective-type questions. A link was available for the

posttest to collect the data. Opinio was used. The link was sent to the

participants via IHG‟s LMS.

4) The researcher used Excel to determine the four dimensions of the learning

styles for the individuals. The data was then imported into SPSS.

39

5) The pretest and posttest data was imported into Excel and into a .sav file for

SPSS analysis.

Data Analysis

Organization of the data. The data was collected in Opinio and imported into an

SPSS.sav file. The data imported to the Excel spreadsheet from the ILS survey allowed

the researcher to properly code the outcome of each individual‟s learning style, as well as

learning styles by delivery mode group.

The completed pretests and posttests were analyzed to determine the number of

questions that were correct; the posttests were compared to the pretests to determine a

score. This was completed for the online participants first, and then for the participants

who attended the face-to-face training.

Analysis. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the data for

the pre and posttests and to determine how the scores of the online learners differed or

related to those of the face-to-face learners T-tests were used to test the differences in

learning preference across learning styles.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine if an interaction exists between a

hospitality employee‟s learning style and his or her preference for participating in online

or traditional instruction modes of training. The study was a result of careful and

thoughtful planning and used the correct procedures, instruments and analysis to provide

the corporate training industry with useful empirical data on the topic. Felder &

Solomon‟s (1988) ILS was used in this study determined the learning style of each

employee and how he or she falls in the Active/Reflective, Sensing/ Intuitive,

40

Visual/Verbal, and Sequential/Global continuums. Scores on the pretest and the posttest

were calculated for each delivery mode. The demographic data collected will be used

for future publications by the researcher.

41

Chapter 4: Analysis

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate learning styles and delivery modes in

training at the organizational level--specifically, the corporate hospitality organization.

The researcher was interested in determining if any significant correlation exists between

the learning styles of the participants and their preference to delivery mode. The results

of the study are presented in this chapter and include an analysis of the data and summary

of the data analysis results. This chapter will begin by discussing the descriptive

analysis, and then each research question with the appropriate analysis.

Research Questions

The following research questions helped guide this study.

1. Does the employee‟s learning style determine his/her preference for training

delivery mode?

2. Does an employee have better learning results via online or traditional

instruction mode?

3. Does an employee have better learning results if delivery mode is matched to

learning style?

An additional question arose from the analysis of data.

4. Should hospitality-training organizations match instructional systems delivery

(ISD) content with learning styles?

Demographic Characteristics

The participants in the study were hotel employees within the Intercontinental

Hotels Group franchise system. The PERFORM workshop was selected for the purposes

42

of this study. During the summer of 2010 there were a total of 6 online and 5 traditional

PERFORM workshops offered. A total of 259 participants completed the workshop: 61

traditional attendees and 198 online attendees. Those that agreed to participate in this

study totaled 79, with 58 from online and 21 from traditional workshops. Table 4.1

describes the workshop data.

Table 4.1 PERFORM workshops June - November 2010

Workshops Offered

Traditional 6

Online 5

Total Workshop Attendees

Traditional 61

Online 198

Participants in Study Response Rate

Traditional 21 34%

Online 58 29%

Fewer employees participated in the traditional workshops. There was a 5%

difference in response rate for participation between respondents attending traditional

workshops and those attending the online workshops. Although there were a greater

number of participants in the online workshops, the response rate was similar to the

traditional workshop response rate.

43

The ILS included 44 questions to satisfy the ILS dimension outcome and an

additional 6 questions about the participant‟s demographics. Please see Appendix C for

the ILS/demographic survey. The frequencies and percentages from the

ILS/demographic survey are presented in the following tables. The study had a sample

population (n=79) in which there were 58 online participants and 21 traditional

participants. The descriptives and frequencies in totality are all located in Appendix B.

A total of 21 participants in traditional workshops and 58 in online workshops

participated. Table 4.2 gives the number of participants and the delivery mode.

Table 4.2 Delivery mode of study group

n %

Mode

Traditional 21 26.6

Online 58 73.4

Total 79 100

There were 51 females that participated and 28 males as seen in table 4.3.

Approximately two-thirds of the participants were female and one-third was male. These

numbers are in sync with the U.S. hospitality population. As of 2005, U.S. Lodging

statistics showed about 68 percent of line level employees were female and 32 percent

were male (2005, AH&LEF).

44

Table 4.3 Gender

n %

Gender

Female 51 64.6

Male 28 35.4

Total 79 100.0

The ages of the participants were categorized into generational age spreads: ages

18-32, Gen Y; ages 33-44, Gen X; ages 45-63, Baby Boomers; and 64 and up, Silent

Generation. These generations could be examined in future studies to determine if there

are any generational correlations. Sixty-six percent of the study‟s participants fell in the

mid-age range of 33 – 54. This data is reflected in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Age of Participants

n %

Age

18-24 10 12.7

25-32 14 17.7

33-44 29 36.7

45-54 23 29.1

55-63 1 1.3

64-72 2 2.5

Total 79 100.0

45

Most of the respondents had some type of formal college experience. About one-

third of the group had a BA/BS or Masters degree. Table 4.5 shows the education of the

participants.

Table 4.5 Education

n %

Education

Completed:

Only High School 8 10.1

1 Year of College 10 12.7

2 Years of College 15 19.0

3 Years of College 6 7.6

4 Years of College (did

not complete)

13 16.5

BA/BS Degree 23 29.1

Masters Degree 4 5.1

Total 79 100.0

All of the participants had some sort of online class or workshop experience. Half

of the participants had taken between 1 and 3 online classes while the other half had

taken more than three. Table 4.6 shows the number and percentage of the online

class/workshop experience.

46

Table 4.6 Online Class/Workshop Experience

n %

Online Experience

1 Class 17 21.5

2-3 Classes 19 24.1

More than 3 Classes 43 54.4

Total 79 100.0

Table 4.7 gives a breakdown of years of experience in the hospitality industry.

The workshop for this study was selected due to its higher barrier of entry -- participants

were required to have some type of industry experience with reservations or yield

management. About 50% had more than 11 years of experience, 25% had 6 – 10 years of

experience and about 25% had less than 5 years of experience.

Table 4.7 Years of Experience in Hospitality Industry

n %

Years of Experience

0-1 3 3.8

2 to 5 17 21.5

6 to 10 20 25.3

11 to 20 29 36.7

21 or More 10 12.7

Total 79 100.0

47

An overwhelming number of participants classified themselves as a General

Manager (43%). Table 4.8 details the distribution of occupation by title.

Table 4.8 Occupation

n %

Title

Sales Manager 3 3.8

GM 34 43.0

Front Desk 10 12.7

AGM 8 10.1

Guest Services 11 13.9

Director of Ops 8 10.1

Reservations 3 3.8

Revenue Manager 2 2.5

Total 79 100.0

Prior to running the analyses of the data, a correlation was run to see if there were

any relationships of interest. There were several relationships present in the data which

can be found in Table 4.9. The relationship between sequential/global and

sensing/intuitive learning styles show that there was a strong correlation between the two

variables, r=.516, n=79, p<.000 with high levels of sequential/global and

sensing/intuitive. Additionally, it was found that there was a strong correlation between

48

Table 4.9 Correlations

49

Table 4.9 Continued

50

the two variables education and sensing/intuitive, r=.247, n=79, p<.028, as well as the

two variables education and sequential/global, r=.228, n=.043, p<.043. These results will

be further discussed in chapter 5.

Analysis of the Data

Research Question 1 – Does the employee’s learning style determine his/her preference

for training delivery mode?

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare delivery mode and

learning style dimensions. Table 4.10 offers the means and standard deviations, t-test

results for the delivery modes, and t-test results for each of the learning dimensions in the

ILS model. Also contained in this table are the results of the t-test for significant

differences between the two delivery mode groups. As indicated, there was no

significant difference for the dimensions and the delivery mode. It appears that learning

styles is not related to the preference for delivery mode for hospitality training. Each of

the dimensions, was shown to be close and has a large standard deviation.

51

Table 4.10 Means, Standard Deviations, and T-test Results

Learning

Style

Dimension

Delivery

Mode n Mean

Std.

Deviation t-value Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Act/Ref Traditional 21 -1.62 4.522 0.6 31.474 0.58

Online 58 -2.24 3.908

Sen/Int Traditional 21 -2 6.527 0.64 77 0.522

Online 58 -2.97 5.647

Vis/Ver Traditional 21 -5.57 4.567 -1.6 77 0.114

Online 58 -3.38 5.638

Seq/Glo Traditional 21 -0.62 4.455 1.04 77 0.301

Online 58 -1.66 3.697

Research Question 2: Does an employee have better learning results via online or

traditional instruction mode?

There was no significance found for the question of learning results, as

determined by the pretest and posttest scores. Table 4.11 offers the mean scores and

standard deviations for both delivery modes. The online mode (M=8.27, SD1.81) did

slightly better on the posttest than the traditional mode (M=7.57, SD=1.60). The

difference in the posttest score is 1.56 in that the online participants scored higher than

did the face to face participant.

52

Table 4.11 Pre and Post Test Scores

Pre and Post Tests/Mode

Delivery Mode Tests Mean

Std.

Deviation n

Traditional 0 Pre 6.64 1.50 22

Post 7.57 1.60 14

Total 7.00 1.59 36

Online 1 Pre 6.71 1.78 56

Post 8.27 1.39 15

Total 7.04 1.81 71

Overall

Pre Test 6.69 1.69 78

Post Test 7.93 1.51 29

Total 7.03 1.73 107

A two-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to

explore the impact of the pretest and posttest on delivery mode. The subjects were in two

groups, traditional and online. Each participant completed a pretest before the workshop

and a posttest after the workshop. The interaction effect between delivery mode and

pretest and posttest were not statistically significant, F(1,281)=.69, p=.41 There was a

statistically significant main effect for the pre and posttest scores F(1,281)=11.27 p=.001.

The ANOVA summary for scores and delivery mode are presented in Table 4.12.

53

Table 4.12 ANOVA results

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable:score

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Corrected

Model 36.035a 3 12.012 4.405 0.006

Intercept 4230.16 1 4230.156 1551.21 0

Mode 2.97 1 2.968 1.088 0.299

pre_post 30.72 1 30.721 11.265 0.001

mode *

pre_post 1.89 1 1.892 0.694 0.407

Error 280.88 103 2.727

Total 5602.00 107

Corrected Total 316.92 106

a. R Squared = .114 (Adjusted R Squared = .088)

Question 3: Does an employee have better learning results if delivery mode is matched

to learning style?

This question could not be answered with the current data set. As a hospitality

training organization, it is part of the corporate culture to not test employee understanding

before or after training sessions. All of the participants in this study were voluntary and

did not have the incentive or motivation to complete the posttest (as evidenced by the

lack of test results turned in after the workshop). The success of the training is currently

not measured in the form of comparing the pretest and the posttest; however, the scores

can be seen as an aggregate of the sample. In the design of the study, the researcher

looked for group interaction; due to the lack of number of responses on the posttest, they

were not matched with the pretest. Table 4.13 shows the test results for the pretest and

posttest.

54

Table 4.13 Pretest and Posttest scores.

Mode N Mean Std. Deviation

PreTest Traditional 22 6.64 1.497

Online 56 6.71 1.776

PostTest Traditional 14 7.57 1.604

Online 15 8.27 1.387

Question 4: Should hospitality-training organizations match instructional systems

delivery (ISD) content with learning styles?

Table 4.10 shows that there is no significance in traditional (M=-5.57, SD=4.57)

and online delivery modes(M=-3.38, SD 5.64) and learning style dimensions

t(77)= -1.60, p=.11. However, it does suggest that out of the four dimensions, the

visual/verbal styles need to be examined more closely.

Summary

Chapter four of this dissertation presented the results of the research study.

Descriptive statistics of the study were outlined for a better understanding of the

participant pool. The research questions were answered by the correct test being applied

to help find significance. A t-test was used to investigate learning styles and the delivery

modes of the participants. Next, an analysis of variance was used to determine if the pre

and posttest had significance with the delivery mode. Finally, it was found that the third

research question could not be answered by applying a statistical test to the experimental

design. While looking at the data as a whole, a forth question arose Should hospitality-

55

training organizations match instructional systems delivery (ISD) content with learning

styles? and was able to be investigated with a t-test. Although there was no significance

found in any of the testing, there are definite implications that arise from the study.

Those implications, as well as a discussion and suggestions for future research, will be

examined in chapter 5.

56

Chapter 5: Discussion

Introduction

Over the course of the last decade, experts in the training industry have struggled

with how to find the best delivery platform for training session attendees. In the

hospitality industry, where turnover rates are high and change happens quickly, this

struggle is no different - hospitality organizations trying to stay afloat in today‟s economy

need to effectively yet efficiently train employees. In this research study, the learning

styles of hospitality industry employees were explored in relation to the delivery modes

of training offered to them. Understanding how to match training and delivery modes

could produce positive outcomes for both the employee and the hotel. This final chapter

focuses on the findings of the study and how they can be applied to the hospitality

industry as a whole. In addition, this chapter includes a summary of the study, discussion

of the results, implications, and recommendations for future research.

Summary of Current Study

According to the World Tourism Organization (2011), the hospitality and tourism

industry employs more than 10% of the global workforce, will support the creation of 5.5

million jobs over the next decade and is 11.7% of the world‟s gross domestic product.

With such staggering statistics, there are also numerous issues in the workforce. With the

large number of employees in this sector, there are also large turnover numbers that are

unique to the industry as discussed in chapter 1. Training employees is essential in any

industry, yet according to Smith and Kemmis (2010) training in the service sector is

inferior to other industries due to costs, turnover and employee longevity.

57

In tandem with the lack of quality of training, little attention has been placed on

how employees prefer to learn (learning styles) and how they prefer to be trained

(delivery mode). There is a need to understand how employees of this industry learn and

how that learning is applied on the job; doing so may lead to lowering industry turnover

rates.

The purpose of this study was to explore the learning styles and the preference for

delivery modes in hospitality training. Three research questions guided this study and

then a forth question was added as the data was being analyzed.

The three questions:


delivery mode?

2) Does an employee have better learning results via online or traditional

instruction mode?


learning style?

An additional question was added:

4) Should hospitality-training organizations match instructional systems delivery

(ISD) content with learning styles?

Methods, Participants and Instruments

This quantitative study used several tests to determine the significance of the

research questions. The study was conducted in a hospitality training setting and a quasi-

experimental design was used. The real-life, real-time nature of the training classes used

in this study did not allow for random assignment. The quantitative data was collected by

58

Opinio, an online survey software. The data was then imported into PASW/SPSS version

18 statistical software for analysis.

Training Workshop and Participants

A total of 11 workshops, 6 traditional (face-to-face) and 5 online, offered by

Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG) were included in the study. The title of the

workshop was “PERFORM” and the content was centered on the topic of revenue

management. The PERFORM workshop was selected because of the following features:

(a) the ISD was the same in both delivery modes; (b) this was not for entry-level

employees; (c) the workshop was taught by experienced trainers in both the online and

traditional formats. The data was collected over a six-month period of time.

Seventy-nine employees participated in the study. There was a total accessible

population of 259; 61 from the 6 traditional workshops and 198 from the 5 online

workshops. The convenience sample included 21 employees from the traditional

workshops and 58 employees from online workshops.

Data Collection

One week prior to the workshop start date, an email outlining the research project,

institutional review board (IRB) consent forms and a link to the online survey were sent

to the entire accessible population of the PERFORM workshops. If an employee agreed

to be a participant, a link to a pretest would then be sent. After the workshop, the

employee would receive an email with a link to the posttest. This was consistent for both

the online and traditional participants and each delivery mode filled out the surveys

online.

59

Instrument/Measurement

For this study the Felder-Solomon Index of Learning Styles (ILS) was chosen as

the instrument to measure learning styles. The ILS is based on the Felder-Silverman

Learning Style Model and has a total of 44 questions to determine four dimensions:

Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Visual/Verbal, and Sequential/Global. The

dimensions are detailed below. Each dimension has 11 questions and the preferences are

then expressed in values of 11a to 11b or a scale of -11 to +11. See Table 5.1 for an

example of the scale used to plot the results.

The four dimensions in the model are as follows:

Active/Reflective. Active learners understand by doing. They tend to enjoy

trying things out. Reflective learners would rather think things through first and take time

to think about the concept or theory being presented.

Sensing/Intuitive. Sensing learners like to “learn facts” first and typically solve

problems by proven methods. They tend to memorize facts. Intuitive learners enjoy

learning from the possibilities of a concept. Intuitive learners don‟t care for

memorization and routine types of learning and would rather be innovative.

Visual/Verbal. Visual learners remember what they learn by seeing. Pictures,

diagrams, and demonstrations are helpful to visual learners. Verbal learners like to hear

how things relate to the topic and get more out of written and spoken explanations.

Sequential/Global. Sequential learners prefer to learn in a linear fashion, step by

step. Global learners would rather see the whole picture and begin learning at any point,

not just at the beginning.

60

Table 5.1 ILS Score Sheet

-11 0 +11

Strong Preference Well Balanced Strong Preference

Active Reflective

Sensing Intuitive

Visual Verbal

Sequential Global

(Felder & Soloman, 2005).

There were six demographic questions added to the 44 question ILS that asked the

participant‟s gender, age, education, online course experience, years of hospitality

experience and job title. See Appendix C for the ILS and demographic survey.

The pretest and posttest instrument was an 11-item test developed by the revenue

management team at IHG; please see the tests in Appendix C. The instrument included

multiple choice and true or false questions. The posttest had one additional question

which was: if you had your choice, without regarding time, space or money, would you

rather take this workshop: a) online, at your own pace, b) face to face in a traditional

workshop setting, c) online with a “live” facilitator.

The demographic data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. T-tests were

used to analyze learning styles as well as the pre and posttest scores. A two-way analysis

of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to analyze the delivery mode and learning

outcomes.

61

Summary of Results

There were several relationships present in the data. The first was a relationship

between two learning styles. The relationship between sequential/global and

sensing/intuitive show that there was a strong correlation between the two variables,

r=.516, n=79, p<.000 with high levels of the learning style sequential/global and sensing

intuitive. In addition, two of the learning styles showed a relationship with education.

As the education level increased, so did the positive relationship with sensing/intuitive,

r=.247, n=79, p<.028 and sequential/global r=.228, n=.043, p<.043. The entire table of

correlations can be found in Appendix D. This can be applied to the corporate training

design by allowing the ISD team to incorporate more of the sensing/intuitive and the

sequential/global dimension into the training that is geared for higher educated

employees. Such as leadership workshops or director level workshops. Since there is a

strong relationship with the higher the education, the above dimensions are stronger.

The scoring of the ILS revealed that the workshop participants fell into

“balanced” areas, which is between 1 and 3 (-1 to -3) on the scale. In further exploration

of the delivery modes and the ILS dimensions, the traditional workshop Visual/Verbal

(M=-5.57, SD=4.6) dimension was much stronger than the online Visual/Verbal (M=-

3.38, SD=5.6) dimension. The traditional workshop attendees preferred that the content

and presentation be more visual. Online participants indicated that the learning style was

less visual, more verbal when presented online.

A two-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact of

delivery mode and test results. Participants were divided into the delivery modes,

traditional or face-to-face. The interaction F (1,281) =.69, p=.41 and there was a

62

statistically significant main effect for the pre and posttest scores F (1,281) =11.27

p=.001. This suggests that the delivery mode did not affect the scores of the tests. When

looking at the scores on the tests, however, there was a positive impact on the posttest

score after the intervention. Additionally, online attendees received higher scores on the

posttest than the traditional participant workshop participants. This is important for the

corporate hospitality training due to the idea that the culture has not allowed for testing.

It is shown that testing at some level, either on a workshop by workshop basis, or random

testing would allow for over-all evaluation of the training program. With the evaluation,

the training ISD can be updated from the results of the testing by incorporating the results

from the pretest and posttest.

Discussion

The demographic profile of the participants is as follows and can be found in

Appendix B. Study participants were 65% female and 35% male. The majority of the

participants were between the ages of 33 – 54, with 37% between 33-44 and 29% ages

45-54. Most of the participants had some college education and 29% had a BA/BS

degree. The online experience was strong, over 54% of the participants had taken more

than three online classes. The overall hospitality experience varied; 22% had 1-5 years,

25% had 6-10 and 37% had 11-20 years of experience. Experience was defined as

industry wide, and not property specific. Forty-three percent of the participants had a

title of general manager. Overall, the participants were employees with experience in the

industry, formal education, and online class experience.

There were several correlations that showed a positive relationship in the data.

When looking at learning styles and education, it showed that the more the education

63

level rose, so did the positive strength of the relationship for sensing/intuitive and

sequential/global. What this may indicate is that as a person grows in educational

experiences, which are both formal and informal, then the stronger the shift would be to

the right side of the number line in the ILS. Thus, the higher the education, the more

intuitive the participant would be and they would think more globally than sequential.

A two-way ANOVA indicated that there was no interaction effect between the pre

and posttest with regarded to the delivery mode. There was no observed interaction

effect between test scores and time and the delivery mode. The interaction between

scores and delivery mode is not statistically significant and suggests that in either of the

delivery modes (traditional or online) there would not be different scores.

The two-way ANOVA did show that there was a difference between the testing

scores in the online and traditional workshops. Although slight, a significance stating

that the online workshop participants improved more than the traditional workshop

participants after the training occurred.

To explore the differences further, several t-tests were used to compare learning

mode preference with each style. What was seen in the analysis was that there was no

significance in the learning style dimensions and the delivery mode. However, it was

found on the histogram, Figure 2, that the visual/verbal dimension was the closest to

being modal. Visual was the strongest for the traditional workshop and verbal the

strongest for the online workshop.

This is important for both trainers delivering the content of the training and the

ISD department. By incorporating more visuals into the traditional workshop, such as

pictures, videos, and charts, it would help those attending the training that has a

64

preference for the visual dimension. This is true for those writing the content, to think

about strategically placing visual material throughout the training workshop. For those

that are online, the data shows that the preference is not as visual as traditional, and closer

to a balanced verbal dimension. For these online workshops, the verbal tone and cues are

essential while online since for these workshops, there is no face to face interaction, only

a live voice. The voice is heard while there are live screen shots of the revenue

management system or a PowerPoint. Overall, this dimension, the visual/verbal, stands

out among the others due to the application it has to the stages of ISD and the delivery of

the content.

Figure 2. Visual/ Verbal Dimension from ILS.

65

There was not a significant preference in the other three dimensions for traditional

or online users. The findings suggest that once the overall preference of delivery mode

was taken out, the learning style dimensions were close to being the same (with the

exception of the visual/verbal dimension).

Implications

The purpose of this study was to investigate if there was a relationship between

learning styles and preference for delivery mode in a corporate hospitality setting. Based

on the results, there was no significant difference for the participants with regards to

delivery mode and the learning styles. However, even with the results as such, the study

has implications to the training industry as a whole and, more specifically, to the

hospitality industry.

There have been several studies focusing on matching learning styles and delivery

modes. Most of these studies have been located at a university setting with students.

Although the studies are of interest and add to the larger body of literature, it is essential

to take the step from university to practice. This study contributes to the sparse pool of

learning style research aimed at helping the training industry understand employee

learning styles and how those styles are important to the delivery modes of instruction

offered.

Most corporate hospitality organizations have a formal learning team that focuses

on the development of training materials and the delivery of the content to franchisees.

The main goal of this learning team is to deliver the end product, without looking at how

people learn. Hospitality corporations need to take into account that there are different

type of learners and that materials should be developed to address different learning

66

styles. It would also seem that the cookie cutter approach is the not the best approach to

training individuals across the four learning style dimensions.

From this study, it was found that out of the four dimensions in the ILS, the

visual/verbal should be noted as important to hospitality training. The data revealed that

online learners‟ preference was verbal and the traditional learners‟ preference was visual.

Although this finding does not indicate to write ISD content in one way or another, it

does say that ISD needs to incorporate more visual aids for the traditional learner and

more verbal aids for the online learner.

The implication that may be greatest felt are those at the hotel level where

turnover is the highest. Turnover at the hotel level can be due to reasons which may

include low wages, hours expected to work, and customer service expectations. At the

root of these issues is the actual training of employees and the matching of the delivery

mode to learning styles. If the employee can be matched to his or her learning style and

receive the material in a way in which he or she prefers, then the employee may retain

more information and be more likely to stay in a position.

This research also has wider implications for the training departments across

industry sectors. There has been a shift to online training over the last few years due to

the perception that online training will “save” money. Although it could be the case for

some of the participants, it cannot be assumed that the corporate learner wants to receive

online training. At first glance, it may look like the savings are real in terms of training-

related travel and expenses; if a person attends training and does not grasp the

competencies set forth, however, it could ultimately result in turnover, which may be a

greater expense.

67

If corporate learners do not embrace the fully online delivery mode, there may be

need to focus on helping them embrace the mode. Having “mini” workshops online or

providing a blended delivery approach may ease the employee into distance learning.

Allowing for different online training modes, such as using asynchronous delivery, may

help strengthen technical skills.

The final implication is that there should be some type of testing at corporate

hospitality training, to measure the outcome of the workshop and the transfer of skills to

the workplace. It is widely known that the culture in hospitality training is not to test.

The participants that attend training get a certificate of completion for attending the

training, rather than checking for the transfer of knowledge in skills. Many organizations

evaluate the training by only looking at who delivers of the content (the trainer), or the

value of the training to the participant. Such evaluations in the industry are known as

smile sheets.

What is suggested is that hospitality organizations test for knowledge after the

workshop. For workshops that teach technical skills, such as reservations systems,

property management systems, and revenue management systems, this could be a good

way to follow up training. The testing can be done a few weeks after the workshop is

completed and can be accomplished by an online software survey. Allowing the

employee to use the skills taught in a workshop and then testing for knowledge would

help evaluate the final goal of the training, which is the transfer of knowledge/skills into

the workplace.

From this study there are many different ways to incorporate the findings.

Hospitality organizations that write training content as a “one size fits all” can use

68

learning styles as a guideline to augment content and reach the different types of learners.

The training industry as a whole can benefit from these findings in the hospitality

industry.

Limitations

There were some limitations to this study. The first was the low number of

participants in the traditional workshop. This may have been due to time constraints,

internal hotel issues or simply budget restraints. Therefore, only 21 traditional workshop

participants agreed to join the study. This was compared to 59 online participants.

There were also challenges in design of the study. The return of the posttests was

less than expected and were not matched to the pretest or the ILS. The reason for this is

simply the culture of hospitality training organizations. Most of the hospitality industry

does not currently test after the workshop. For this study, there was no incentive for the

participants to take a posttest, thus, the number of participants that returned a posttest

suffered. The results had to be generalized to the sample, instead of the individual.

Another limitation of the study was that only one corporate hospitality company

was used. IHG might not be representative of all hotels in the United States. This is due

to company culture, as well as the leadership at the corporate level and at the hotel level

with regards to learning within the organization.

The final limitation was using just one type of workshop, PERFORM. It would

be advisable to get more participants by setting up the study using several different

hospitality content workshops held in different locations across the country. This study

was carefully designed to limit the participants to one type of workshop in order to

strengthen the reliability of the instrument that was used in the pilot test.

69

Although there were some limitations in this study, this is the first known study in

hospitality practice that explored learning styles and workshop delivery mode. The

findings will serve as a base for future research and will promote understanding of how

learning styles are applied in hospitality learning organizations and contribute to the

greater good of the training industry.

Future Research

This study provided additional information to the current literature in learning

styles and workshop delivery modes; there is additional opportunity to replicate the study

and expand the reach to a larger sample. Future researchers are encouraged to use the

ILS instrument and the foundations of this study to investigate across different hospitality

corporate platforms. This includes smaller corporate hospitality companies as well as

hospitality management companies.

It is also advisable for future research to match the learning styles to the pre and

posttest outcomes. This can be done during the initial steps designing the research study.

For smaller organizations, it would be interesting to include all employees in the

organization and then be able to write ISD for the learning styles found in the

organization.

If this study is replicated in the future, it would be interesting to look the

demographics of the brands that attend training. For this study, most of the brands

attending the training were Holiday Inn Express and Holiday Inn brands. However, to

look at the correlations between brand, title, age, and years of experience would be

interesting.

70

Future researchers are also encouraged to investigate if there is a link between

instructional delivery modes and learning transfer. Taking this study one step further,

researchers could follow the participants after the study to determine actual use of the

knowledge and if one workshop group applied the skills learned in the workshop more

than the other group. Future studies could also investigate whether there are any

differences in learning styles, retention of materials presented and (a) age (b) gender,

and/or (c) current position/title.

Final Thoughts

This research study was designed to help open the doors of large hospitality

organizations to see what their current practices are and how to improve the learning

organization. With that in mind, continuing to research how employees learn best in a

corporate setting is critical to ensuring industry success.

71

References

(2002). Incentive Research Foundation. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from Incentive Research

Foundation Web site: http://www.theirf.org/

(2006). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics Web site: http://www.bls.gov/

(2009). Comp Data Surveys. Retrieved July 25, 2009, from Comp Data Research,

https://www.compdatasurveys.com/2009/index.php

Andragogy.net. (2010). Understanding Andragogy. Retrieved from: www.andragogy.net.

Association of Training and Development. (2009). Retrieved from ASTD.com.

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals

and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.

American Hotel and Lodging Association. (2011). Http://www.ahla.com

Aragon, S., Johnson, S., & Shaik, N. (2000, December). The Influence of Learning Style

Preferences on Student Success in Online Versus Face-to-Face Environments.

American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4).

Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student's perceptions in a blended

learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology

& Society, 11(1), 183-193

Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing leadership effectiveness. NewYork: Wiley-Interscience.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective,

Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Facilitating organizational

learning, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

http://www.theirf.org/

https://www.compdatasurveys.com/2009/index.php

72

Arthur, W, Bennett, W, Edens, P, & Bell, S. (2003). Effectiveness of training in

organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234-245.

Behnke, C., Ghiselli, R. (2004). A Comparison of Educational Delivery Techniques in a

Foodservice Training Environment. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism,

4(1), 41-56.

Bell, B., Kanar, A., & Kozlowski, S. (2008). Current issues and future directions in

simulation-based training in North America. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 19(8), 1416-1434.

Berings, M, Poell, R, & Simons, P. (2008). Dimensions of on-the-job learning styles.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 417-440.

Benander, R. (2009). Experiential learning in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 36-41.

Brown, John and Paul Duguid. 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities of

Practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.

Organizational Science, 2(1): 40-57.

Buch, K., & Bartley, S. (2002). Learning style and training delivery mode preference.

Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(1), 5-10.

Butuza, A, & Hauer, I. (2008). KM and learning organizations. MANAGEMENT AND

MARKETING, IV(XVII), 1312-1317.

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures.

Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444.

73

Cicco, G. (2009). Online versus in class courses: learning-style assessment as an

advisement tool. International JI. on E-Learning, 8(2), 161-173.

Choi, I., Lee, S., & Kang, J. (2009). Implementing a case-based e-learning environment

in a lecture-oriented anesthesiology class: Do learning styles matter in complex

problem solving over time? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5),

933-947. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00884.x.

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and

pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.

www.LSRC.ac.uk: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Costa, D. (2001, Fall2001). Current Trends in Learning Styles. Florida Communication

Journal, 29(2), 66-74.

Dastoor, B. Reed, J. (1993). Training 101: The Psychology of Learning. Training &

Development, 47(6), 17-20.

Dimitroff, A. and Wolfram, D. (1995) Searcher response in a hypertext-based

bibliographic information retrieval system. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science, 46:22-9.

Donavant, B.W. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education online instruction

in a continuing professional education setting. Adult Education Quarterly, 59,

227–245.

Dunn, R. & Dunn. K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles:

A practical approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Reston Book.

74

Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., Olson, J., Gorman, B., & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta-analytic

validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning style model. Journal of Educational

Research, 88(6), 353-361.

Easterby-Smith MPV and Lyles M. (2003). Organizational learning and knowledge

management: agendas for future research, in The Blackwell Handbook of

Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, (eds) Easterby-Smith

MPV and Lyles M, Blackwell, Oxford, England.

Felix, C. (2006). Training for Now and the Future. Production Machining, 6(3), 36-39.

Felder, R, & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.

Engr. Education, 78(7), 674–681.

Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College

Science Education. J. College Science Teaching, 23, 286-290.

Felder, R., Brent, R. (2005). Understanding Student Differences. Journal of Engineering

Education, 94(1), 57-72.

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering

Education. Engineering Education, 78 (7), 674-681.

Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (1991). Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire.

Retrieved December 10, 2009 from North Carolina University:

http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html

Felder, R, Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, Reliability, and Validity of the Index of

Learning Styles, A validation study of the Index of Learning Styles. Intl. Journal

of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.

http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/mark-easterby-smith/

75

Finger, M. and Brand, S. B. (1999) „The concept of the “learning organization” applied to

the transformation of the public sector‟ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J.

Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization,

London: Sage.

Frontczak, Nancy. 1990. The role of learning styles in marketing education.

Genovese, J. (2004). The Index of Learning Styles: An Investigation of its Reliability and

Concurrent Validity with the Preference Test. Individual Differences Research.

Gent, van, Bastian (1996): „Andragogy‟. In: A. C. Tuijnman (ed.): International

Encyclopedia of Adult Education and Training. Oxford: Pergamon, p. 114-117.

Gibson, W., Callery, P., Campbell, M., Hall, A., & Richards, D. (2005). The digital

revolution in qualitative research: Working with digital audio data through

Atlas.ti. Sociological Research Online, 10(1), 1-10.

Graf, S., Liu, T., Kinshuk, K., Chen, N., & Yang, S. (2009). Learning styles and

cognitive traits – Their relationship and its benefits in web-based educational

systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1280-1289.

Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2007). Providing adaptive courses in learning management systems

with respect to learning styles. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of the world

conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher

education (e-Learn) (pp. 2576–2583). Chesapeake, VA: AACEPress.

Hall, Stephen S. J. (1990). Quality Assurance in the Hospitality Industry. Milwaukee,

WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Hammond, D. (2001). Reality Bytes. People Management, 7(2), 26-30.

76

Harris, R., Dwyer, W., & Leeming, F. (2003). Are learning styles relevant in web-based

instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 13-28.

Honey P, Mumford A., (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles. Berkshire: Honey,

Ardingly House.

Howard, R, Carver, C, & Lane, W. (1996). Felder. Proceedings of the twenty-seventh

SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education.

Huang, R. T. (2007). Improving the service quality of distance education [Electronic

version]. International Journal of Instructional Technologies & Distance

Learning, 4(5), 10+.

IBM, Initials. (2006). Expanding the innovation horizon: the global CEO study 2006.

Retrieved from CEO

http://www7.ibm.com/smb/includes/content/industries/electronics/pdf/Global_CE

O_Study_-_Electronics.pdf

Ileana, H, & Ileana, B. (2009). KM and learning organizations. Management Agricol,

11(2), 271.

Intercontinental Hotels Group. 2009. IHG Annual Report and Financial Statement.

Atlanta, GA.

Intercontinental Hotels Group. 2010. IHG Training Department. Personal

Communication. Atlanta, GA.

Jasinski, M. (1998). Teaching and learning styles that facilitate on line learning:

Documentation project, project report. Adelaide: Douglas Mawson Institute of

TAFE.

http://www7.ibm.com/smb/includes/content/industries/electronics/pdf/Global_CEO_Study_-_Electronics.pdf

http://www7.ibm.com/smb/includes/content/industries/electronics/pdf/Global_CEO_Study_-_Electronics.pdf

77

Kaufman D., ABC of Learning and teaching in medicine; Applying educational theory in

practice; BMJ Volume 326 (2003) 213-216.

Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In NASSP's Student learning styles:

Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National

Association of Secondary School Principals.

Kissane, Jim (2005). Workforce Development. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from Workforce

Development Web site: http://kissaneasylum.typepad.com

Klein, H., Noe, R., & Chongwei, W. (2006). Motivation to Learn and course outcomes:

the impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and

enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665-702. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2006.00050.x.

Knowles, M. S. (1970, 1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Andragogy

versus pedagogy, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed Learning. Chicago: Follet.

Knowles, Malcolm S. (1978). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Gulf

Publishing Company.

Knowles, Malcolm S. (1989). The Making of an Adult Educator. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Knowles, Malcolm S. 1980. The modern practice of adult education. New York: Adult

Education.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and

development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

http://kissaneasylum.typepad.com/

78

Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M., McIntyre, J.M. (1974). Organizational Psychology: A Book of

Readings, 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Kovac, D. (2008). Lifelong learning in restaurant business. Tourism and Hospitality

Management, 14(1), 141-152.

Kraiger, K. and Ford, J. K. (2007), „The Expanding Role of Workplace Training: Themes

and Trends Influencing Training Research and Practice‟, in L. L. Koppes (ed.),

Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp.281–309.

Lee, J. (2010). Design of blended training for transfer into the workplace. British Journal

of Educational Technology, 41(2), 181-198.

Lim DH, Morris ML. 2006. Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction,

and organizational climate on perceived learning and transfer training. Hum.

Resour. Dev. Q. 17:85–115ch

Litzinger, Thomas A., Lee, Sang Ha, Wise, John C.and Felder, Richard M., A

psychometric study of the index of learning styles©, Journal of Engineering

Education, v 96, n 4, October, 2007, p 309-319.

Liu, Y. (2007). A comparative study of learning styles between online and traditional

students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 41-63.

Loo, R. (2002). Working towards best practices in project management: a Canadian

study. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 pp.93–8.

Lu, J, Yu, C, & Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, learning patterns, and learning

performance. Information & Management, 40, 497-507.

http://www.learningfromexperience.com/research-library

http://www.learningfromexperience.com/research-library

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863%2800%2900042-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863%2800%2900042-9

79

Martins, L. L. & Kellermans, F. W. (2004). A Model of Business School Student‟s

Acceptance of a Web- Based Course Management System. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 7-28.

Mayer, R. (2009). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Merrill Prentice Hall.

Merriam, Sharan H. & Caffarella Rosemary S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 89, 3-13.

Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Oren, A. & Lahav, O. (2000). Web-Based Learning

Environments: Current Pedagogical and technological State. Journal of Research

in Computing in Education, 33(1), 55-76.

Molenda, M., & Sullivan, M. (2000). Issues and trends in instructional technology. In R.

Branch & M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook

2000: Vol. 25 (pp. 3-13). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Moreno, R., and Mayer, R.E. (2005), „Role of Guidance, Reflection, and Interactivity in

an Agent-based Multimedia Game,‟ Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 117–

128.

Myers, Isabel Briggs (1980). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Davies-

Black Publishing; Reprint edition (May 1, 1995).

National tourism organization. (2011.). Retrieved from http://www.unwto.org

Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. & Gould, J.M. (1997). Understanding organizations as learning

system. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gifts-differing

80

O‟Leonard, K. (2010). Training and Development Factbook 2010. (White paper).

Oakland, CA: Bersin and Associates.

Olesen, Henning (2007). Theorizing learning in Lifehistory: a Psycho-societal approach.

Studies in the Education of Adults, 1, 2007.

Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: applications in education and epistemology.

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Prange, C. (1999) „Organizational learning – desperately seeking theory?‟ in M.

Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and

the Learning Organization, London: Sage.

Pratten, J, & Curtis, S. (2002).Attitudes towards training in UK licensed retail: An

exploratory case study. Hospitality Management, 21(4), 393-403.

Rakicevik, G, Miladinoski, S, & Strezoska, J. (2008). Lifelong learning in restaurant

business. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 14(1), 105-114.

Reischmann, Jost (2003): Why Andragogy? Bamberg University, Germany

http://www.andragogy.net

Rindova, V. P., & Petkova, A. P. 2007. When is a New Thing a Good Thing?

Technological Change, Product Form Design and Perceptions of Value for

Product Innovations. Organization Science, 18(2): 217-232.

Roberts, Joanne (2006) Limits to Communities of Practice. Journal of Management

Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 623-639.

Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH:

Merrill/Macmillan.

http://www.andragogy.net/

81

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress.

Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471-499.

Seery, N., Gaughran, W. F., & Waldmann, T. (2003).Multi-modal learning in engineering

education. Proceedings, 2003 Conference and Exposition. Washington D.C.:

American Society for Engineering Education.

Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sitzmann, T.,Kraiger,K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative

effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: Ameta-analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 59(3), 623–664.

Stutts, Alan T. (2001). Hotel and Lodging Management: An Introduction. New York:

Wiley.

Taran, C. (2006). Enabling subject matter experts to deliver synchronous online training

– practical guidelines. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23(3), 182-195.

TIP Theories. (2008). Retrieved from http://tip.psychology.org. Web site:

http://tip.psychology.org/theories.html

Tziner, A., Fisher, M., Senior, T., & Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K.G., &

Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future

directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7, 245–258.

Woods, R.H, Mccaulay, J.F.R. (2006). Turnover: Retention Programs that Work. Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant.

Yilmaz, R. A. (2005). Using of Marketing Communication for Distance Education

Institutions. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 1-7.

http://tip.psychology.org/theories.html

82

Zenger, J. (2002). Getting the best of both worlds. Training Strategies for Tomorrow,

16(4), 12-14.

Zenger, T., Lazzarini, S., & Poppo, L. (2002). Informal and Formal Organization in New

Institutional Economics. Advances in Strategic Management, 19: 277-306.

83

Appendices

Appendix A Eastern Carolina University Fall 2009 Study Results ................................ 84

Appendix B Demographics of Participants................................................................... 105

Appendix C ILS, Pre Test, and Post Test Surveys ....................................................... 106

Appendix D Overall Descriptive ILS Results and Correlations ................................... 115

84

Appendix A

Eastern Carolina University Fall 2009 Study Results

The data were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).

The dependent variables were the learning styles and the independent variable was the

delivery mode of instruction. Bartlett‟s test of sphericity (25.20, df=9, p>.001 indicated

that a MANOVA was appropriate. The results of the MANOVA are presented.

Dependent Variables Online Delivery Mode Face to Face Delivery Mode

M SD M SD

Active/Reflective -1.5 3.66 -3.51 3.95

Sensing/ Intuitive -4.25 4.89 -3.57 4.91

Visual/Verbal -3.00 4.90 -3.97 3.12

Sequential/Global -2.77 2.82 -3.5 3.66

Table 1

The hypothesis was to see if students, when self selecting online or face to face

classes, had certain learning styles. The hypothesis posited that there is no significance in

the learning styles between online section and the face to face section of a hospitality

class. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the dependent variables by

delivery mode. The multivariate main effect for delivery mode was not significant,

Wilk‟s lambda = .941, F(4, 38) = .592, p>.001. All of the univariate effects were not

significant: active reflective, F(1,41) = 1.73, p > .001, , -2.= .041, sensing and intuitive

F(1,41)=.124, p>.001, , -2.= ..003, visual verbal F(1,41)=.505, p>.001, , -2.= .012,

sequential global F(1,41)=.389, p>.001, , -2.= .009.

85

Statistics

ActRef SenInt VisVer SeqGlo Gender Age Educ

N Valid 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation 3.937 5.458 3.909 3.754 .412 391 1.031

Statistics

OnlineCl Status Ethic StateBorn Major Work

N Valid 43 43 43 43 43 43

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Std. Deviation .861 .338 .588 2.985 .152 .499

Statistics

Hrswrked Mode

N Valid 43 43

Missing 0 0

Std. Deviation .667 .394

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Female 34 79.1 79.1 79.1

Male 9 20.9 20.9 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

86

Age


Cumulative

Percent

18-24 39 90.7 90.7 90.7

25-32 3 7.0 7.0 97.7

33-44 1 2.3 2.3 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

Educ


Cumulative

Percent

V High School 3 7.0 7.0 7.0

2 Years of College 12 27.9 27.9 34.9

3 Years of College 19 44.2 44.2 79.1

4 Years of College 9 20.9 20.9 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

OnlineCl


Cumulative

Percent

V 1 21 48.8 48.8 48.8

2-3 10 23.3 23.3 72.1

More than 3 12 27.9 27.9 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

87

Status


Cumulative

Percent

Single 41 95.3 95.3 95.3

Married 1 2.3 2.3 97.7

Divorced 1 2.3 2.3 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

Ethic


Cumulative

Percent

White 38 88.4 88.4 88.4

African American 3 7.0 7.0 95.3

Asian Pacific Islander 1 2.3 2.3 97.7

Hispanic 1 2.3 2.3 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

88

StateBorn


Cumulative

Percent

ALABAMA 2 4.7 4.7 4.7

CALIFORNIA 2 4.7 4.7 9.3

FLORIDA 1 2.3 2.3 11.6

GEORGIA 1 2.3 2.3 14.0

ILLINOIS 1 2.3 2.3 16.3

MARYLAND 3 7.0 7.0 23.3

MINNESOTA 1 2.3 2.3 25.6

NEW JERSEY 3 7.0 7.0 32.6

NEW YORK 3 7.0 7.0 39.5

NORTH CAROLINA 22 51.2 51.2 90.7

TEXAS 1 2.3 2.3 93.0

VIRGINIA 3 7.0 7.0 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

89

Major


Cumulative

Percent

Hospitality 42 97.7 97.7 97.7

English 1 2.3 2.3 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

Work


Cumulative

Percent

V Yes 25 58.1 58.1 58.1

No 18 41.9 41.9 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

Hrswrked


Cumulative

Percent

Full Time 24 55.8 55.8 55.8

Part Time 15 4.9 34.9 90.7

Seasonal 4 9.3 9.3 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

90

Mode


Cumulative

Percent

Online 35 81.4 81.4 81.4

Traditional 8 18.6 18.6 100.0

Total 43 100.0 100.0

Histogram

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105


Cumulative

Percent

Traditional 21 26.6 26.6 26.6

Online 58 73.4 73.4 100.0

Total 79 100.0 100.0


Cumulative

Percent

Female 51 64.6 64.6 64.6

Male 28 35.4 35.4 100.0

Total 79 100.0 100.0


Cumulative

Percent

18-24 10 12.7 12.7 12.7

25-32 14 17.7 17.7 30.4

33-44 29 36.7 36.7 67.1

45-54 23 29.1 29.1 96.2

55-63 1 1.3 1.3 97.5

64-72 2 2.5 2.5 100.0

Total 79 100.0 100.0


Cumulative

Percent

High School 8 10.1 10.1 10.1

1 Year of College 10 12.7 12.7 22.8

2 Years of College 15 19.0 19.0 41.8

3 Years of College 6 7.6 7.6 49.4

4 Years of College 13 16.5 16.5 65.8

BA/BS Degree 23 29.1 29.1 94.9

Masters Degree 4 5.1 5.1 100.0

Total 79 100.0 100.0


Cumulative

Percent

1 Class 17 21.5 21.5 21.5

2-3 Classes 19 24.1 24.1 45.6

More than 3 Classes 43 54.4 54.4 100.0

Total 79 100.0 100.0


Cumulative

Percent

0-1 3 3.8 3.8 3.8

1-5 17 21.5 21.5 25.3

6-10 20 25.3 25.3 50.6

11-20 29 36.7 36.7 87.3

21 or More 10 12.7 12.7 100.0

Total 79 100.0 100.0


Cumulative

Percent

Sales Manager 3 3.8 3.8 3.8

GM 34 43.0 43.0 46.8

Front Desk 10 12.7 12.7 59.5

AGM 8 10.1 10.1 69.6

Guest Services 11 13.9 13.9 83.5

Director of Ops 8 10.1 10.1 93.7

Reservations 3 3.8 3.8 97.5

Revenue Manager 2 2.5 2.5 100.0

Total 79 100.0 100.0

Valid

Gender

Valid

Age

Valid

Education

Valid

Title

Valid

Online Experience

Valid

Years of Experience

Valid

Appendix B

Demographics of Participants

106

Appendix C

ILS, Pre Test, and Post Test Surveys

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Appendix D

Overall Descriptive ILS Results and Correlations

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Active Reflective -2.08 4.060 79

Sensing Intuitive -2.71 5.866 79

Visual Verbal -3.96 5.434 79

Sequential Global -1.38 3.910 79

Age 2.96 1.126 79

Education 4.15 1.847 79

Online Experience 2.33 .812 79

Years of Experience 3.33 1.071 79

Title 3.48 1.866 79

116

117

Documents

Hospitality Training: Do Learning Styles Matter?